Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Katie McCullin on June 24, 2010 at 6:29

In addition to the efforts of EnergyInDepth.org, the Joint Landowners Coalition of New York, Inc is also aggresively opposing the movie for its inaccurate portral of the industry and its practices.

http://www.jlcny.org/site/index.php/news/latest-news-articles/192?l...

Also, The Commonwealth Foundation, a non-profit, independent, research and education group has also published information disputing the claims in GasLand (http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog/detail/gasland-deb...).

Not to overload you with information, but it's a lot harder to be scared if you educate yourself. Here are additional websites which detail the industry's operations and its use of hydraulic fracturing.

hydraulicfracturing.com
naturalgaswaterusage.com
cngnow.com

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on June 24, 2010 at 7:39

Much thanks, Katie.

Permalink Reply by laehonu on June 24, 2010 at 8:41

thanks for the additional info links Katie.

Permalink Reply by Jerry Lobdill on June 24, 2010 at 8:39

Gilbert is correct. Actually it is not the fracking that is the likely cause of the raw gas infiltrating the ground water. It is poor cement jobs and/or aging. Have you ever seen a flagstone sidewalk or patio that didn't have cracks between the stones? It is the interfaces between the well bore and the cement where this will occur almost assuredly. But the interface between the casing and the cement is also vulnerable. These gas wells are ticking time bombs even when done according to best practices.

I have seen these flammable water faucets. I am certain the owners didn't rig up a connection between their cold water supply and their gas line to produce the result.

Beware of landmen. When their lips are moving they're lying.

Permalink Reply by Marc Schulz on June 24, 2010 at 9:49

Gilbert is incorrect. Many locations throughout North America have methane in the water. Just as there is more oil seeping into the ocean from natural sources, there is natural gas seeping into the water systems from coal bed methane and other surface structures. This was occurring in regions in my area long before drilling for NG occurred in the area.

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on June 24, 2010 at 10:14

Jerry:

(Wait, where's Gilbert? He needs to be here for this to see that everyone is subject to shots across the bow, and you don't have to stomp away with whatever might be left of one's bag of marbles...)

On what basis do you now classify all gas wells as ticking time bombs? I appreciate the parable-like relation of 'when you see crack sidewalks and patios, think of might happen to a gas well near you", but seriously, all of them? On top of every well shown on Gasland, too (because all of those water wells shown are now methane producers)?

Considering that we have actually been utilizing produced gas from wells in this state since about 1870, and considering we've been at active exploration for over 100 years, drilling over 240,000 wells onshore, you would think that much of Louisiana would have useless artesian water wells. Somehow this is not the case, even in and around our oldest fields. Has the alarm clock not gone off for these wells? What in your estimation has prevented the whole (or even good portions of alluvial South Louisiana from widespread well cavitation, structures from sinking into the resultant liquefied soil, and every artesian well from becoming a methanogenic toxic slurry? In many parts of this state we can't maintain concrete and asphalt roadway, but we got virtually all of the well cement jobs right?

These faucets with natural gas coming out of them, where would I find them in this state? Are they common, or do I not just not get out enough? Why are we not pilloried by landowners and mineral owners on GHS, who are undoubtedly friends and family with tens of thousands of Louisiana land and mineral owners, speaking of their own 200' natural gas producers converted from their previously drilled water wells?

Is the reason that Baton Rouge water wells do not show methane intrusion even when taken from water wells located in and around oil and gas fields producing since the thirties just shear dumb luck, uniformly excellent cement jobs, or that cement and mortar doesn't crack here? I point to these because (a) it's where I live and (b) University Field has had regular reworks, completions, and drilling since the above stated timeframe, and thus survived through evolving standards and practices of well drilling and operations and (c) it is a municipal supply which is regularly drawn upon and regularly tested, allowing for rigid sampling rather than mere anecdotal evidence.

Based upon similar use of inductive reasoning a la cracked sidewalks and landmen, beware of Lobdills, they might use inductive reasoning to make overstated conclusions.

Would you be the same Mr. Lobdill, retired physicist and engineer, who subscribes to the belief that we used explosives to take down WTC 7? Or that authored a study of Barnett Shale pipeline incidents that had been previously cited by your esteemed colleague, TXSharon?

Permalink Reply by Jerry Lobdill on June 25, 2010 at 5:27

I'm impressed. You know how to search with Google. But you distorted my accomplishments. By the way, what are yours, Mr. Landman (employer: Warhorse Land Services)? See? I can Google too. And what are your educational credentials?

Do you have any published technical work? See one of mine here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/, scroll down to Volume 12, July 2007

Landmen--when their lips are moving, they're lying.

Permalink Reply by DJG on June 25, 2010 at 11:18

Jerry,

Dude, if you're trying to impress anyone here with your "educational credentials" you might have to dig a bit deeper than posting a link touting your "published technical work" which happens to be posted on some 9/11-was an inside job website.

Doesn't add too much street cred, towards helping any of us here believe that your arguments in this thread topic are based in any non-paranoid reality.

Call me dyslexic, but I first read your topic in the link above as exploring the "Physical chemical aspects of TERMITES... as applied to the demise of the World Trade Center" rather than THERMITE as you have actually written in your piece.

Imagine that, TERMITES bringing down the WTC.

Then again, I guess that Termites causing the fall of the towers is no less dillusional or insulting of a theory than any of this other WTC/Inside Job nonsense.

Permalink Reply by Dorcheated A1 on June 25, 2010 at 11:24

Jerry,

You must be waiting on a comet?

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on June 25, 2010 at 12:36

DC you better get the tin foil out and go buy some earmuffs for the dog.

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on June 25, 2010 at 21:12

Jerry:

Sheesh, you've heard of Google, too? I've been found out... Though I do think that most people surfing the internet and using GHS would have heard of Google, too. So much for that secret tool of ours...

Reading your technical work (link provided above, it reads like the highly-educated, yet inductive and simplistic analysis that you spout here. Sidewalks and stones can crack, so all well casings will fail. A landman lied to you, thus all landmen must be liars. WTC 7 looked like one of those projects that CDI takes on, so it must have been a controlled demolition. With explosives. Or thermite. "(Wasn't aware that people would use or choose thermite to cut vertical columns - detcord and RDX seems so much easier.) So then the balance of your work goes on to prove your "theory", which seems more to prove that it is possible to demolish a WTC-sized building by implementing the principles that you assert, thus that must be what happened.

What I don't see is any deductive reasoning, or any treatment of alternate theories (e.g., evidence of sulfur being from decomposition of pulverized drywall at high temperature vs. thermate compunds), save reasoning such as 'this is what I think it is, look I can do it my way, thus there can be no other explanation... (gobbeledlygook data, gobbeledlygook data)' Do you prefer dealing in actual science, or echo chamber consensus science? Have you considered signing onto the IPCC report, and going out on the limb that Kennedy got clipped by a team of assassins working in concert (c'mon, what's the easiest way to take out a target, alone?)?

As for my education, not nearly so eventful as yours, I'm sure. I only have a B. Sc. degree. I majored in Biological Chemistry. I am a landman, but didn't you already know that - it's not a field which allows for generation of technical work, but I believe I still remember how to read it. If I do have a fault with the truth, it's that I will speak to it even if it's not what one might want to hear. I don't throw my education out there because I don't feel like it necessarily makes my opinion more valid than anyone else's. I'd much rather talk with people than at them or down to them, and generally take issue with those who do, mostly on principle.

But please, tell us about you. I am sure that the members here would like to know why you have diverted your attention from your other blogging and commentaries to grace us with your presence. [Members impressively googling your other exploits now]

Permalink Reply by Mark Pomeroy on June 25, 2010 at 2:04

Why the sudden increase in trolling? For the benefit of those who are not trolling, ground water contamination is a major concern of both industry and regulatory agencies. This concern has manifested itself as regulations and practices to make it an extremely rare occurance. All wells, including but not limited to waste water disposal wells, water wells, oil wells, gas wells, co2 wells, and brine wells present a small but finite risk of ground water contamination. A 747 may crash into a high-rise appartment building. We all take risks every day.

As for the trolls, well, yawn.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 10
• Next ›
• Page